39

A Review and Renovation of Language Teaching Methodology

Lyndon Small, Fukuoka University, Japan.

Abstract: The overall focus is how Michael Byrams work on (inter)cultural competence can
renovate foreign language teaching methodology in the 21st century. The first section briefly
reviews a few popular approaches in language teaching in recent decades, noting their
deficiencies. The next section outlines perspectives of three eminent language scholars, Andy
Kirkpatrick, Claire Kramsch and Michael Byram, about language teaching and culture. This
helps to frame advice for enhanced foreign language teaching methodology in the final
section. There are three main suggestions how language teaching methodology should evolve.
First, it must be relevant and effective in our dynamic world, where English is a global
language, often used as a lingua franca for communication within and among cultures.
Another recommendation is that it needs to realign from a focus on grammar and language
structure to a broader perspective incorporating (inter)cultural (para)linguistic and pragmatic
content. Thirdly, teaching should promote higher level cognitive processing so that learners
can express their opinions and culture in more analytical and meaningful ways through a
shared (foreign) language. Suggestions are aimed to help educators improve their course
design and also to reinvigorate their teaching methods.

Keywords: Intercultural competence, Communicative competence, Methodology,

Assessment.

1. Introduction

In practical ways, this paper suggests how Michael Byrams work on (inter)cultural
communicative competence can renovate foreign language teaching methodology in the 21st
century. Initially, there is a brief review of popular approaches in language teaching in recent
decades, including the Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) method, shadowing and the notional
functional approach. Although such teaching methods allow learners to pronounce English
words, to form and perhaps understand English sentences, the first two methods in particular,
are not focused on awareness of and sensitivity towards cultural aspects of language
production with speakers from different cultures. The opinion expressed here is that these
three approaches are disadvantageous if consistently applied as a predominant teaching
method because they are geared towards language (structure) proficiency rather than teaching
intercultural competence. There is an outline of some aspects of English language teaching
from the perspective of three eminent contemporary scholars. In particular, Michael Byrams
recommendations offer practical and relevant ways to realign methodology, from a focus on
teaching language structures to expanding teacher and learner awareness of their own culture
 40

and also proficiency when communicating in various intercultural contexts. Among various
suggestions for assessing intercultural competence is to score language production activities
which stimulate higher level cognitive processing.

2. Deficiencies of Popular Language Teaching Approaches

This section briefly reviews three popular language teaching methods in recent decades:
Present, Practice, Produce (PPP), shadowing and the notional functional approach. If teachers
are to renovate and reinvigorate what they do, there needs to be active and ongoing
self-evaluation of course aims, teaching content and methodology.

The Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) method has long been used to teach points of grammar
and to practice syntax. It could be described more critically as a simplistic teaching method
rather than one effective for learning (see Case, 2008). The idea that learning occurs in a set
sequence of present, practice and then produce does not necessarily prepare learners for the
complexities of real-time communicative interaction. Short-term use of the PPP method can
introduce learners to elements of communicative acts in another language. However, teachers
might restrict content for practice to what they perceive to be expected, standard utterances.
Although Kirkpatrick (2010, 2012) would perhaps not challenge using the PPP method per se,
he believes that native (English) speakers often do not speak in standard forms. This presents
a methodological issue whether or not to present non-standard forms to (especially
elementary) language learners.

Another popular language teaching and learning method is shadowing, whereby learners
repeat what they hear as they listen. Advantages of this method are limited to the context of
pronunciation. These include a learners ability to practice speaking anywhere and at any time
convenient for them and also that it can help learners to practice the prosodic elements of a
foreign language. An important criticism though is that learners do not actively process
meaning and engage in any real communicative interaction. Learners cannot exchange
opinions or meaningful information on their own terms. Moreover, this method does not deal
with specific aims of (inter)cultural awareness or ability to communicate flexibly in
meaningful cross-cultural communication.

Since the 1970s, a notional functional approach has been commonly used when teaching
English as a Second Language (ESL) and also English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This
approach has been catered to by a vast range of textbook series that present learners with
grammar-based themes to practice English, using the four macro skills. Many contemporary
English language textbooks continue a notional functional approach to language teaching.
This is evidenced from a common first unit theme of 'Introductions' to other themes and
 41

functions of everyday interactions such as ordering food, giving directions, making

reservations, shopping and offering advice. This approach to language teaching focuses on
very practical language use. As such, it involves the situations, participants, time, topics and
activities in which learners might engage, where English is a lingua franca, either in their own
or perhaps a foreign culture setting. However, valuable time can be wasted by starting each
course with students 'learning' introductions. In a Japanese context, this is unnecessary given
at least ten terms of English education before learners reach their first year of university study
and this is why some English language textbooks are produced for 'false beginners'.
Nevertheless, at university level, teachers continue to teach such themes as 'giving directions',
introducing vocabulary and engaging students in reading simple maps and pair work activities.
Such exercises are assumed to be of practical significance for the student in case a foreigner
asks them for directions in their own country or they need to ask in another country. In reality,
such a task is usually and significantly paralinguistic. The person giving directions will
initially orient their body in the direction of the goal location. Then there is pointing and also
hand gestures to indicate direction. It is this, arguably more than the details of verbal
expression that convey meaning and allow comprehension. Moreover, technology now
provides easy access to detailed maps on hand-held internet wifi devices that effectively do
away with any need to ask for directions. Similarly, teachers engage students in activities
where they order food and drinks in restaurants. In reality, again, there is usually
paralinguistic behaviour, such as pointing at a menu, holding up fingers to indicate the
number of drinks and so on, which does not require much linguistic proficiency.

It is not a criticism here to claim deficiencies of the notional functional approach as such.
Criticism is aimed at teachers who blindly apply this approach assuming that real life
foreign language use exists in neatly defined contexts and where learners can effectively
communicate with a defined range of expressions learned for a particular situation. This
assumption effectively trivialises language teaching through its compartmentalising of
interactive scenarios. Although the content and methodology of the common notional
functional approach can play a useful role in introducing aspects of speech and
communication, it is perhaps a more appropriate way of teaching ESL, or EFL in elementary
schools, junior and senior high schools. In contrast, the nature of university education as one
of advanced-level academic study should feature language courses with much more deliberate
focus on culture, rather than those with isolated lesson-by-lesson themes and content
restricted to pronunciation or grammar.

3. Perspectives of Three Eminent Scholars

This section outlines some of the views of language teaching and learning (also see Michael
Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein, & Colby, n.d.). The following summary comes from three
 42

eminent scholars: Andy Kirkpatrick, Claire Kramsch and Michael Byram. The content
featured in their plenary speeches and respective printed materials from language conferences
in the latter half of 2012. The aim is not to critically compare their differing views, but mainly
to provide an academic context to highlight aspects of teaching intercultural competence from
the perspectives of Michael Byram; refer table 1. His views form the basis of the advice
offered in section 4, how teachers can renovate and reinvigorate their language teaching
methods.

3.1 Focus of Language Teaching

The focus of language teaching, as suggested by Kirkpatrick (2012) involves being able to
communicate immediate here and now needs well enough so that speakers can talk about
what they want in ELF at any given time. Kramsch (2012) clearly prefers teaching for a
higher level of linguistic proficiency so that what learners say is more structurally accurate.
The key for Byram (2012) is for both an increased teacher and learner awareness of and
sensitivity to a wide range of important communicative contexts. This extends to learners
being able to analyse and avoid communication breakdown, or to develop strategies to repair
problems in real time. This entails goals of being a spontaneous communication manager,
aware of respective cultural conventions, able to listen and respond in meaningful, appropriate
and respectful ways in a variety of communicative contexts.

3.2 What Learners Do

Byram suggests that when speakers communicate, they do so as individuals, not culturally
packaged representatives. This means that not all Japanese, for example, know how to make
sushi or origami, play the koto, know all about sumo or the tea ceremony and how to wear a
kimono. Nationality becomes incidental and cultural practices appear less universal when
individuals discuss their own experiences, feelings and opinions. This also helps to break

Table 1. Perspectives on Language Teaching

Scholar Kirkpatrick Kramsch Byram

Education goal Communicative Symbolic competence (inter)cultural
competence competence

Focus of Teach learners how Teach learners to Teach learners to

language teaching to communicate communicate be aware of how
well enough for accurately and they communicate
their immediate eloquently. within and between
needs. cultures.
 43

What learners do A goal is mutual Learners learn culture Learners talk about
intelligibility to from awareness of everyday life, possibly
achieve shared dissecting cultural to compare with
communicative layers from cultural that of other cultures.
goals. (con)texts.

Pronunciation, Mutual speaker Production accuracy Secondary to aims of

grammar and intelligibility is a goal. cultural awareness
syntax. is key. and sensitivity.

Pragmatics: Acceptable if Unacceptable though Appropriacy:

Mister, where comprehensible. comprehensible. what/where/how/
you go? to whom we should
(not) say or do.

Language and Teaching language Teaching language Teaching language

culture means helping means access to means teaching culture.
learners to explain culture through
knowledge and skillful use of Teach cultural content.
culture in their own layers of semiotic
terms using ELF. meaning.

Assessing Possible to do Questionable whether Possible to do. It can be

cultural but not a focus. we can or should a focus, despite issues
proficiency do it. and complexities.

down cultural stereotypes, when for example, speakers explain what they or their families do,
in contrast to much broader cultural strokes that might be the perception of others. Although a
typical Japanese New Year custom is to visit three shrines to pray for good luck, it is
nevertheless a fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese travel abroad at that time of year.
This does not mean that these travellers are not typical Japanese, nor that they are unaware of
usual Japanese New Year customs.

3.3 Pronunciation, Grammar and Syntax

Kirkpatrick is adamant that teachers should not waste valuable class time being pedantic, by
focusing on the pronunciation of minimal pairs, fossilised mistakes or the omission of s at
the end of words. He questions the point of trying to overcome this linguistic hardwiring
except where pronunciation impedes comprehension. One example of misunderstanding could
occur from the modification of final l sounds to n in Thai, where bill becomes bin. In
 44

the context of romance, if a native Japanese speaker were to utter I rub you, it would most
likely be interpreted as I love you, considering the illocutionary force of such a statement.
Therefore, learners should be made aware of not only what they hear and say, but also of their
intended message. Alternatively, Kramsch believes that accuracy is noticed and appreciated
and that learners should strive for rhetorical eloquence. Their proficiency then extends to an
ability to sound cool and fashionable in a natural way. Regarding the prosodic elements of
speech, grammar and syntax, Bryam probably has the least overall focus of the three scholars,
with a proficiency goal for learners to become more culturally (self)aware and sensitive to
speakers from other cultural contexts.

3.4 Pragmatics
The example provided here is Mister, where you go?, a commonly heard utterance in
Thailand. Notwithstanding grammaticality, Kirkpatrick would accept this as a valid question
because it is comprehensible. The listener is likely to understand that this is a style of greeting
for which a general, rather than specific answer is suitable. Furthermore, he emphasises that
almost all native English speakers do not speak standard forms of English. This means that
the utterance of a native English speaker, such as They aint done nothing wrong, or No
have for a non-native speaker, though unconventional are nevertheless effective because they
are comprehensible.

On the other hand, Kramsch would think that such utterances are sloppy and undesirable. She
believes that speakers need to be credible, more than just comprehensible because those who
do not communicate accurately are taken less seriously. She thinks it is better to speak less,
but speak well rather than to speak more and to do so poorly, even if communicative goals are
achieved effectively. Overall, Byram would suggest that learners should be aware of
appropriate (and also inappropriate) contexts, timing, gestures and utterances. Pragmatic
competence is therefore an important component of intercultural competence.

3.5 Teaching and Assessing Cultural Competence

Byram believes that teaching language means teaching culture, such is their integral
relationship. Nevertheless, one of the difficulties associated with planning and teaching
courses in cultural competency is the nature of learner assessment. This is owing to the
subjective course content and the fact that in a number of ways it is problematic to assess
attitudes. One problem is that attitudes change over time and with related exposure to cultures
through experience. Another obstacle is how to score attitudes, given that learners should not
feel obliged to respond in particular ways. There is also the question of whether attitudes can
or should be assessed at all.
 45

One suggested activity for practice and possible assessment (Byram 2000) is for learners
create a portfolio where they can describe their (intercultural) experiences, including how they
felt at the time. Such descriptions could be based on personal experience, or for example,
from material they view on television or the internet. A goal is for learners to explain aspects
of their experience including the way/s that culture can create problems with interaction,
possibly causing communication breakdown. Further to this, Byram (2000) suggests that
learners engage in reflective analysis of their own intercultural experiences. They could then
write or talk about these experiences and possibly suggest ways their problems were (or could
have been) overcome. Teachers can assess the proficiency of responses according to definable
criteria such as lexical range, syntax, coherency and so on. The teacher then is effectively not
assessing the attitudes, feelings and beliefs of learners per se, but can comment on both the
linguistic and cultural content that learners produce. Teachers can provide students with
constructive feedback as to how they can express themselves better in oral or written practice.

4. To Renovate and Reinvigorate Language Teaching Methodology

This section offers three main points of advice, incorporating some ideas of Byram (2000,
2012) with the aim to suggest how language teaching methodology should evolve with
focused planning and practice.

4.1 Teach Culture Through Content

First, if we assume that language teaching aims to produce global citizens, learners need to
learn about the world. This means that teachers should not be afraid to teach content beyond
points of pronunciation and grammar. However, it does not necessitate teaching controversial
or complex (cultural) topics. Too often, teachers either consciously or inadvertently present
content neatly packaged into isolated, perhaps unrelated personal topics. This is one of the
criticisms of the notional functional approach previously discussed. Teachers should avoid
stereotypical, superficial, sporadic and ad hoc approaches to teaching content such as the
following listed by Hadley (1993, p. 360).
1. The Frankenstein Approach - a geisha from here, a temple from there, a karaoke bar from
here, a hot spring from there.
2. The four Fs - food, fairs, folklore and statistical facts (Kramsch, 1991).
3. The Tour Guide Approach - the identification of geographical features such as mountains,
rivers and cities.
4. The By-the-Way Approach - promoting an Us and Them mentality with an incidental
presentation of information that emphasises cultural differences. One of the reasons that
teachers (even inadvertently) choose these approaches is because of the format of textbooks.
Teaching high quality, meaningful cultural content does not necessitate presenting information
from a textbook. With reference to knowledge (saviors) explained by Byram, Gribkova and
 46

Starkey (2002, p. 8), meaningful content can be generated by learners within and between a
series of lessons as they examine how language is used within and among cultures.

4.2 Teach Skills of Discovery and Interaction

Language teaching methodology needs to realign from a focus on grammar and language
structure to a broader perspective incorporating (inter)cultural (para)linguistic and pragmatic
content. Teachers should prepare materials and activities that focus learner attention on
various aspects of communicative experience relating to interaction between and among
individuals and also as expressions of more generalized cultural practices. This exemplifies
skills of discovery and interaction (savoir apprendre/faire) (Byram, Gribkova and Starkey,
2002, p. 8). For example, in a carefully structured sequence of lessons, learners can write
about a cross-cultural communication problem from their experience and then for speaking
practice, prepare picture cards to explain that problem, why it occurred and suggest how such
a problem might be avoided. This can be done as an individual or small group practice and
also involves active peer listening in English. Teaching methodology can be more relevant
and effective when learners actively engage in activities that encourage them to talk about
their communication experiences.

4.3 Encourage Higher Level Cognitive Processing

Thirdly, teaching should promote higher level cognitive processing so that learners can
develop a more analytical approach to communication. One goal is for students to express
their opinions about culture in considered, even profound ways through a shared (foreign)
language. The learners ability to explain the importance of cultural practices can be a valid
means of assessing cultural competence. Teachers should accept the validity of learner
opinions and provide guidance as to how they can express themselves more appropriately.
This is part of critical cultural awareness (savoir s'engager) (Byram, Gribkova and Starkey,
2002, p. 9). Although teachers might balk at how to present culture topics, higher level
cognitive processes do not necessitate complex language production. It is quite possible for
learners to indicate their ability to analyse and critique in simple ways. Importantly, learners
should be asked to think about and produce language that extends far beyond basic
descriptions, likes and preferences. Their thought processes need to involve imagination and
flexibility. For example, if discussing forms of entertainment popular in their country,
learners should be taught how they can talk about how television might change in the future
(speculation), or how television programs can be an effective source of education (evaluation).
In terms of promoting overall language proficiency, learners should be encouraged to develop
topics, to be able to talk about something and respond in appropriate, meaningful ways as
communicative acts become extended.
 47

5. Conclusion

For more than a decade, the work of Michael Byram has suggested how aims of purposefully
teaching and assessing cultural content to foreign language learners can be achieved. Whereas
traditional assessment has focused on language output, rating the learners macro-skill
proficiency, a broader perspective is offered for teaching culture beyond linguistic forms. To
renovate language planning and teaching, conventional learner outcomes might not be the
criteria for assessment, but instead, the ways in which students cognitively process content
and how they express their views to demonstrate an acquired appreciation of various points of
culture. The views of three eminent scholars helps to contextualise and also to highlight how
teachers can approach the way they deal with specific cultural content and assessment. To
reinvigorate foreign language methodology, the final advice offered is to have fun. Teach
content that you enjoy and share your enthusiasm with learners. Both teaching and learning
should be an enjoyable experience that motivates and encourages participation. Thanks to the
work of scholars such as Michael Byram, frameworks for teaching and assessing culture can
make an important contribution to teacher training, professional reflection and a reassessment
of language teaching goals and methods. A goal for learners to explain in another language
what various aspects of culture mean to them and why these are important is of no minor
educational significance. This more than justifies the teaching of focused cultural topics
within a second language curriculum.

References

Byram, M. (2012, December). Culture in foreign language learning the implications for
teachers and teacher training. Paper presented at The Fifth CLS International
Conference, CLaSIC, Singapore.

Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in
language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Language Policy Division,
Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education, Council of Europe.

Case, A. (2008). 15 reasons why PPP is so unfashionable. TEFL.net. Retrieved from

http://edition.tefl.net/articles/teacher-technique/why-ppp-is-unfashionable/

Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching Language in Context. Heinle & Heinle: Boston.

 48

Kirkpatrick, A. (2012, August). Teaching English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: Maintaining

linguistic and cultural diversity. Paper presented at Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in
ASEAN, Bangkok. Retrieved from
http://www.ilac.dusit.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Andy-Kirkpatrick.pdf

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual

model of ELT. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/
10072/42297/73943_1.pdf?sequence=1

Kramsch, C. (2012, December). Re-framing the cultural component of foreign languages in

an era of globalization. Paper presented at The Fifth CLS International Conference,
CLaSIC, Singapore.

Kramsch, C. (1991). Culture in language learning: A view from the United States.
In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in
cross-cultural perspective (pp. 217-240). Amsetrdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Michael Paige, R., Jorstad, H., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (n.d.). Culture Learning in
Language Education: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved from
http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/resources/litreview.pdf